Put a . Because if I accidently click on "quote". the thing won't go unless I post a comment. F!!!!ing annoying. Bastards! Aaaggghhhhhhh.... so annoying.
Covered End - tbh I’d have to do a bit more homework,but I would have thought that c £20- 25m in the current market would be about right, but valuing football clubs is certainly an anomaly- after all the buyers are paying £20-25m to buy the right to lose another c £10m a year which is totally bizarre. In most business purchases, in order to justify a price of £20-25m you’d expect the business to be actually making a profit !! of probably c £2m to £3m a year. Football club purchases generally defy any business logic because they are a relatively quick way to become poor or broke.
In the dim and distant past, I did mention a friend who has worked in football all his life and has also introduced a number of investors to clubs in recent years.
Charlton were looked at, but the price that Duchâtelet wanted was unrealistic. I was told then that this is all down to property - The Valley & Sparrows Lane - as there is nothing else tangible - players on minimal contracts and mostly not valued highly and we are loss making.
The valuation I was told was £20m to (at a push) £25m. Nothing has changed in terms of other tangibles, so Roland needs to bite the bullet or carry on losing £1m a month.
It doesn’t take an Alan Turing-like genius to work it out.
Was that before the sale of Lookman or before his arrival?
Before his sale & after. Lookman had less that 50 games for us before leaving in Jan 2017. There was potential, but no guarantee on who would come in and what they would bid. Konsa was about the only other one on the horizon and it was pretty clear he wouldn’t be there long.
Yes but that was before selling the houses/land behind the east stand. Would be difficult to raise the height of the stand now.
I've been wondering about that. Is it just because the actual space is not enough for the stand itself or is it because there is not enough space behind it for cranes, etc, to build one?
Also, I suspect we could use more suites. So if we cannot build seats out.... how about up? Like this, although smaller? I see more stadiums doing things like this in confined spaces.
The capacity at the Valley could be improved by rebuilding the Jimmy Seed stand and making it a wrap around. I'm sure the travelling supporters of Man U, Liverpool and the big London clubs would fill the space very easily. Oh nearly forgot, we need new ownership, a huge injection of cash, a large chunk of serendipity and a five ten year plan for that to happen. Dream on ... dream on.
Think there would be objections from the occupants of the new houses to raising the roof of the east stand. Increasing the Jimmy Seed capacity would skew the percentage of the ground that has to be allocated to away fans.
Think there would be objections from the occupants of the new houses to raising the roof of the east stand. Increasing the Jimmy Seed capacity would skew the percentage of the ground that has to be allocated to away fans.
Isn't the Valiant House, I think thats the name of the tall apartment building, also a problem now with expanding Jimmy Seed?
Think there would be objections from the occupants of the new houses to raising the roof of the east stand. Increasing the Jimmy Seed capacity would skew the percentage of the ground that has to be allocated to away fans.
The JS stand could be split into upper and lower to counter that problem. However, as I understand it, there may be a problem with access as home and away fans may need to be separated on entry and exit, as well as whilst in the stadium.
Put a . Because if I accidently click on "quote". the thing won't go unless I post a comment. F!!!!ing annoying. Bastards! Aaaggghhhhhhh.... so annoying.
It’ll save as a draft. On the left there is an option for drafts. Go into there and then click delete.
Yes but that was before selling the houses/land behind the east stand. Would be difficult to raise the height of the stand now.
I've been wondering about that. Is it just because the actual space is not enough for the stand itself or is it because there is not enough space behind it for cranes, etc, to build one?
Also, I suspect we could use more suites. So if we cannot build seats out.... how about up? Like this, although smaller? I see more stadiums doing things like this in confined spaces.
Problem with increasing the capacity of the East is not the height as I understand it but is because the access ways have been limited I believe, although its possible access could be increased via land to the Southeast
Yes but that was before selling the houses/land behind the east stand. Would be difficult to raise the height of the stand now.
I've been wondering about that. Is it just because the actual space is not enough for the stand itself or is it because there is not enough space behind it for cranes, etc, to build one?
Also, I suspect we could use more suites. So if we cannot build seats out.... how about up? Like this, although smaller? I see more stadiums doing things like this in confined spaces.
Yes but that was before selling the houses/land behind the east stand. Would be difficult to raise the height of the stand now.
I've been wondering about that. Is it just because the actual space is not enough for the stand itself or is it because there is not enough space behind it for cranes, etc, to build one?
Also, I suspect we could use more suites. So if we cannot build seats out.... how about up? Like this, although smaller? I see more stadiums doing things like this in confined spaces.
Problem with increasing the capacity of the East is not the height as I understand it but is because the access ways have been limited I believe, although its possible access could be increased via land to the Southeast
I think there would be a height issue now because the new houses are closer to the stand than the existing properties. However, the increase in capacity of the east stand wasn’t that significant IIRC - it was more about creating extra space for ancillary accommodation (not primarily for matchday use) to fund the wider works, including the SE corner. Club assurances on these issues are worthless at this point as there is no one there now who fully understands the practicalities.
Yes but that was before selling the houses/land behind the east stand. Would be difficult to raise the height of the stand now.
I've been wondering about that. Is it just because the actual space is not enough for the stand itself or is it because there is not enough space behind it for cranes, etc, to build one?
Also, I suspect we could use more suites. So if we cannot build seats out.... how about up? Like this, although smaller? I see more stadiums doing things like this in confined spaces.
Problem with increasing the capacity of the East is not the height as I understand it but is because the access ways have been limited I believe, although its possible access could be increased via land to the Southeast
I think there would be a height issue now because the new houses are closer to the stand than the existing properties. However, the increase in capacity of the east stand wasn’t that significant IIRC - it was more about creating extra space for ancillary accommodation (not primarily for matchday use) to fund the wider works, including the SE corner. Club assurances on these issues are worthless at this point as there is no one there now who fully understands the practicalities.
I recall that the number of extra seats would relatively small as the upper tier would mainly be for better executive boxes
Just rebuilding the JS and filling in the corners would liberate enough extra capacity for what we would realistically need in the PL. I've never though we needed more then say 32k.
I hear you, and you are free to a different opinion, of course. But I don't really have an opinion, I just have the data. Data does not lie. Single examples are utterly meaningless compared to true studies of the subject.
Here is data that a statistician and economist would call "evidence"....
From 2003-2012, over a decade. All clubs in the Premier League AND The Championship. X axis is average rank of the clubs among the group, the Y axis is money spent on wages.
If TV money makes matchday and sponsorhips less relevant, then how does someone explain this data?
Across the PL and Championship, clubs are "suppose to" spend the same amounts relative to turnover within the leagues. So if that is the case, how is it that clubs that spend the most on wages do soooooooooo much better. And those that do not... do worse?
The answer is that those who can spend the most will get promoted and stay there. Those that do not, are toast. Not every year. Not every team. But overall.
Analysis of this data by economists have come to the same conclusions...
1. Financially, "clubs are simply vehicles to fund money to players." 2. Players have almost total control over where they play and they follow the money 3. Thus, the best players go where they can make the most money. 4. Stadium capacity correlates with league position 5. Matchday correlates with league position 6. Because that excess money from those sources is the "edge" that attracts the best players 7. If you spend the "average" wage in the PL, you stay up 90% of the time 8. If you spend half the average, you stay up 60% of he time. 9. Except for the Big 3 clubs, whose economics are almost irrelevant, if you try to make a profit (or just not lose money), your chances of relegation skyrocket. (Newcastle got relegated twice while making a profit.) 10. Above all, WAGES correlate with league position, which are paid for by all sources, of which match day and sponsorships (and an owner willing to fund losses) is crucial.
And the way to spend enough on wages to make and stay in the PL is to have owners who are willing to lose lots of money.... IF... they do not have a big match day or sponsors. Which we won't. Otherwise, where does the money come to pay for players to keep one up? Or even get there in the first place?
People can disagree with this "theory" all they want. Because it is about as much a "theory" as global warming. If anyone can find a study, real data, over a longer period than this, that supports the idea that clubs can now succeed without big time spending, and do so with low attendances and low income, I am VERY open to it. Until I see that, I'll go with the data. To do otherwise is simply irrational.
Interesting graph, thanks for posting....got your x and y axes mixed up though....x is along the bottom. The R squared value is quite impressive; 1 is a perfect positive correlation and this data gets far closer to that than I would have expected. You could kind of look at it in terms of a performance indicator, i.e clubs above the plot line are 'overperforming' relative to wages and those under it the opposite (note how many Championship teams trying to get to the promised land are in this category, e.g Leeds, Derby and how some other 'smaller' champ teams are managing to overperform on more modest budgets)…...I suppose it is no surprise to find out which side of the line we are!
So, in general, the correlation is pretty strong, but as Henry says, the rub is really in whether you are getting results appropriate to the money you are spending on wages...this is where the human factor comes in and things such as coaching, staff and management really make the difference - or not, as the case may be!
Yes but that was before selling the houses/land behind the east stand. Would be difficult to raise the height of the stand now.
I've been wondering about that. Is it just because the actual space is not enough for the stand itself or is it because there is not enough space behind it for cranes, etc, to build one?
Also, I suspect we could use more suites. So if we cannot build seats out.... how about up? Like this, although smaller? I see more stadiums doing things like this in confined spaces.
Surely it would read ‘thanks Colin’?
You can't see it but on the stand to the right it actually says "DRIESEN"
The pic from the tweet...this was about 2.30pm. They walked down through the DB to the pitch, CP walked them towards our lot warming up, they shook hands with the guy on the touchline then walked back up the steps to the Centre Circle lounge.
The pic from the tweet...this was about 2.30pm. They walked down through the DB to the pitch, CP walked them towards our lot warming up, they shook hands with the guy on the touchline then walked back up the steps to the Centre Circle lounge.
I don’t recognise them but the guy on the right has a furbie on the side of his head. Hope that helps.
The pic from the tweet...this was about 2.30pm. They walked down through the DB to the pitch, CP walked them towards our lot warming up, they shook hands with the guy on the touchline then walked back up the steps to the Centre Circle lounge.
Probably just match sponsors. I would read too much into it.
The pic from the tweet...this was about 2.30pm. They walked down through the DB to the pitch, CP walked them towards our lot warming up, they shook hands with the guy on the touchline then walked back up the steps to the Centre Circle lounge.
I don’t recognise them but the guy on the right has a furbie on the side of his head. Hope that helps.
Who is the bloke in the bottom left with wearing a judge wig and appears to have two make shift eye patches and has no mouth? Just a nose.
The pic from the tweet...this was about 2.30pm. They walked down through the DB to the pitch, CP walked them towards our lot warming up, they shook hands with the guy on the touchline then walked back up the steps to the Centre Circle lounge.
With my current level of beer & scotch the bloke on the right is Bill Clinton.
Comments
Also, I suspect we could use more suites. So if we cannot build seats out.... how about up? Like this, although smaller? I see more stadiums doing things like this in confined spaces.
fiveten year plan for that to happen. Dream on ... dream on.However, as I understand it, there may be a problem with access as home and away fans may need to be separated on entry and exit, as well as whilst in the stadium.
Just rebuilding the JS and filling in the corners would liberate enough extra capacity for what we would realistically need in the PL. I've never though we needed more then say 32k.
So, in general, the correlation is pretty strong, but as Henry says, the rub is really in whether you are getting results appropriate to the money you are spending on wages...this is where the human factor comes in and things such as coaching, staff and management really make the difference - or not, as the case may be!
Hope that helps.